gdrive_search_filesSearches the synced Google Drive folder for files by name (recursive). Returns up to max_results matches (default 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Restrict to this Drive path (optional - defaults to all mounts) | |
| query | Yes | Filename pattern to search for | |
| max_results | No | Maximum results (default 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is recursive, returns at most max_results (default 50), and searches by name. This provides meaningful context about the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every phrase earns its place: 'synced Google Drive folder,' 'by name (recursive),' and 'max_results matches (default 50).' There is zero wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the essential action, scope, recursion, and result limiting. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify what 'the synced Google Drive folder' refers to (e.g., whether it searches all mounted Google Drives by default), but the root parameter and schema help fill that in.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides—it only reiterates the 'by name' and 'max_results' concepts. Since the schema carries the full load, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Searches'), a specific resource ('the synced Google Drive folder'), and the scope ('by name (recursive)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdrive_list_files or gdrive_read_file. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context: searching for files by name in Google Drive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this instead of gdrive_list_files when you need to find a file by name.' The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.